5 ms·

i agree. the mental overhead is too much for me to justify, personally, for my own machine

• fsflover 5y ago
  So don't use Arch. Use Debian.
  • Koshkin 5y ago
    That's a great advice! On the other hand, what is it that Arch offers and Debian does not? (Asking this as a long time Slackware fan.)
    • nix23 5y ago
      Newer packages? A rolling release?
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • jorgemf 5y ago
      What offer debian that arch doesn't offer? Arch it is really stable and with latest packages. I see debian as a pain in the ass when you want a new packages or you have to upgrade to a new version. I don't have those issues in arch.
      • timbit42 5y ago
        Better package management. More stability.
        • jorgemf 5y ago
          I think pacman is one of the best package managers. And as I said, arch it is quite stable, a little less than debian, which stops me from using it in production, but good enough to use it daily.
  • paulsmal 5y ago
    or Fedora
  • pjmlp 5y ago
    In 30 years the "you are using the wrong distribution" never gets old it seems.
    • seanw444 5y ago
      Because it's still relevant, and there will never be a one-size-fits-all distro that satisfies everyone?
      • pjmlp 5y ago
        It works for the desktop OSes that actually matter and are worth selling software to, the fact that it is still relevant is the issue.
  • breakfastduck 5y ago
    Or if you really don't want to have to deal with the overhead, choose macOS or Windows.